Argh, now you are taking me bit too seriously. Apparently the talk about Martian ants and The Matrix weren't enough to indicate that I was mostly joking. You are completely correct in what you say and I'm not doubting empirical science.

I originally just tried to point out that there is empirical evidence on evolution just like there is evidence on most other scientifical theories. These evidences may not be as obvious as those we have on the Earth's shape, but nonetheless they can be regarded as "proof" of evolution. Thus I think one can talk about proofs of evolution. You don't have to rely on ancient fossils or such, modern-day laboratory experiments provide proofs as well.

Of course, in science, new evidence emerge, and existing views may need to be corrected, but this applies all science, not just the theory of evolution.

biohazard wrote:Argh, now you are taking me bit too seriously. Apparently the talk about Martian ants and The Matrix weren't enough to indicate that I was mostly joking. You are completely correct in what you say and I'm not doubting empirical science.

I originally just tried to point out that there is empirical evidence on evolution just like there is evidence on most other scientifical theories. These evidences may not be as obvious as those we have on the Earth's shape, but nonetheless they can be regarded as "proof" of evolution. Thus I think one can talk about proofs of evolution. You don't have to rely on ancient fossils or such, modern-day laboratory experiments provide proofs as well.

Of course, in science, new evidence emerge, and existing views may need to be corrected, but this applies all science, not just the theory of evolution.

You are deviating from the scientific method. All hypotheses must be tested, if they are tested and shown to be false, they must be adjusted or discarded, and a new hypotheses formed. Evolutionary thought overlays many branches of science and depends on each science to "prove" it.

Evolution presents many self admitted hypotheses to form the entire theory. It is not even scientific to say something is "proved" in the context of the scientific method. The next step after a theory is scientific law. It must be stated that evolution is scientific law if it has passed the theory stage. Are you willing to say this?

The problem is that the scientific community allows no rebuttal for the general idea of evolution. If you try to tell me there is no politics involved, then excuse me while I regurgitate.

I think I should have wrote the last post like this. The reasoning in the first is not linear. This is better.

You are deviating from the scientific method. All hypotheses must be tested, if they are tested and shown to be false, they must be adjusted or discarded, and a new hypotheses formed. Evolution presents many self admitted hypotheses to form the entire theory.

The reason many hypotheses are still presented in textbooks and have been rejected by many modern scientists is a testament to the fact that the old hypotheses are untestable. You can not observe them, only provide hard evidence with interpretation which amounts to circumstantial evidence, and speculation.

In another thought, how are you going to "prove" the oxygen catastrophe. You can provide oxidation evidence but it does not rule out every other possibility--which would be required to make a scientific deduction.

It is not even scientific to say something is "proved" in the context of the scientific method. The next step after a theory is scientific law. It must be stated that evolution is scientific law if it has passed the theory stage. Are you willing to say this?

The real problem is that the scientific community allows no rebuttal for the general idea of evolution. So most science students can only think and reason within the context they have been presented for years and years.

If you try to tell me there is no politics involved, then excuse me while I regurgitate. Evolution presents many self admitted hypotheses to form the entire theory. It is not even scientific to say something is "proved" in the context of the scientific method. The next step after a theory is scientific law. It must be stated that evolution is scientific law if it has passed the theory stage. Are you willing to say this?

The problem is that the scientific community allows no rebuttal for the general idea of evolution. If you try to tell me there is no politics involved, then excuse me while I regurgitate.

Uhuh, scientific fundamentalists are almost as annoying as religious ones. I wrote the word proof with quotation marks (i.e. "proof" and "proved") especially to indicate that it must not be taken literally, but still I get these replies where people take my every word literally... pretty much like religious fanatics do.

If normal people talk about evolution, the shape of Earth or the colour of your gramma's hair, they can for sure use the word proof when they discuss about the evidence that support their view. Who gives a fcuk if it's a scientifically poor choice of word, unless of course you happen to be having that conversation with a bunch of scientific nitpickers to whom it apparently is a matter of life and death :)

Or maybe this forum is just for hardcore scientists where every single word must be used in the exactly right context, and all common sense is strictly forbidden because it may inviolate the mighty Scientific Method. Petty amateurs such as myself or the original poster of this thread are probably better off if they promptly go back to their sandboxes and just keep playing.

Like I said, "proof" it was a poor choice of word in the first place, but I did put my proof in question marks to indicate that I wasn't talking about scientific proof or any such exact term - this is not playing with semantics, it was just a word that I though best described what I tried to say (and obviously didn't do so). Hell, why would I have used the question marks if I was talking about a defined term? Instead, I tried to use the word in the context people use it in everyday conversation, which generally just means that proof = something that strongly suggests that a thing is so.

Of course since this is a scientific forum, I guess it's fair to expect that people stick to scientific terms as much as possible. I try to behave myself in the future.

We know that design necessitates a designer. In fact, in accordance with this fundamental axiom, design detection methodology is a prerequisite in many fields of human endeavor, including archaeology, anthropology, forensics, criminal jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law, reverse engineering, crypto analysis, random number generation, and SETI. And how do we recognize intelligent design? In general, we find "specified complexity" to be a reliable indicator of the presence of intelligent design. Chance can explain complexity alone but not specification -- a random sequence of letters is complex but not specified (it's meaningless).)

So where's the proof of God's existence? In accordance with our familiar axiom and in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics and information theory, the proof of God is all around us!

Through the microscope, we observe the E. coli bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is what propels E. coli bacteria through its microscopic world. It consists of about 40 individual protein parts including a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It's a microscopic outboard motor! The individual parts come into focus when magnified 50,000 times (using electron micrographs). And even though these microscopic outboard motors run at an incredible 100,000 rpm, they can stop on a microscopic dime. It takes only a quarter turn for them to stop, shift directions and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the opposite direction! The flagellar motor has two gears (forward and reverse), is water-cooled, and is hardwired into a signal transduction (sensory mechanism) so that it receives feedback from its environment. ("Unlocking the Mystery of Life," video documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.)

When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts. Motors are the product of intelligent design.

Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an "irreducibly complex" system. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If you remove any one part, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. There is absolutely no naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the bacterial flagellum. (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996.)

The bacterial flagellum (not to mention the irreducibly complex molecular machines responsible for the flagellum's assembly) is just one example of the specified complexity that pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)

If something is too complex for a man to manufacture, it cannot exist unless someone has designed it. Sheesh. How pathetic is it if the only way you can possibly try to prove the existence of your god is to point out that a bacterium's flagellum is complex. That is sooo last year. Please, find yourself a new proof, this one we've seen already!

Hell, a twelve-gram bacterial cell. Who comes up with this **** in the first place, do you actually understand anything about what you write? Well, luckily at least the references are fresh and up-to-date.

We know that design necessitates a designer. In fact, in accordance with this fundamental axiom, design detection methodology is a prerequisite in many fields of human endeavor, including archaeology, anthropology, forensics, criminal jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law, reverse engineering, crypto analysis, random number generation, and SETI. And how do we recognize intelligent design? In general, we find "specified complexity" to be a reliable indicator of the presence of intelligent design. Chance can explain complexity alone but not specification -- a random sequence of letters is complex but not specified (it's meaningless).)

It depends on what you mean by "design." Snowflakes certainly look designed... each is both complex and unique. Are they evidence of a snowflake designer?

Specified Complexity is a Red Herring. We cannot tell if for example, The Elephant is the result of a Specified Design by looking at it. Was the Elephant the Intended result of a designer, or one of many possible results of evolution?

dingo wrote:So where's the proof of God's existence? In accordance with our familiar axiom and in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics and information theory, the proof of God is all around us!

Such fields have instead taken much out of the mystery of Life which used to be included under theology. Just as we now understand where lightning comes from (not Zeus) we also now understand much more about where babies come from.

dingo wrote:When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts. Motors are the product of intelligent design.

We are not talking about a"chance assembly of parts," we are talking about evolution, which means Selection.

dingo wrote:Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an "irreducibly complex" system. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If you remove any one part, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. There is absolutely no naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the bacterial flagellum. (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996.)

Strange then that neither Behe nor any other IDer has been able to show that any Specific flagellum is, indeed, I.C. Behe only talks about these devices in general terms, yet his whole point is supposed to be about how these things are IC at the molecular level of detail. Anything that is IC can be explained by evolutionary exaption, in any case. The IC argument assumes that parts remain the same over time and never change their function. It also assumes that parts were not lost (as in scaffolding). This is not how evolution is believed to work.

dingo wrote:The bacterial flagellum (not to mention the irreducibly complex molecular machines responsible for the flagellum's assembly) is just one example of the specified complexity that pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)

Denton now thinks that evolution is responsible for all this, but was guided by an unfolding plan from God. See: Nature's Destiny (1998)

A question i always like to ask to mess with ID proponents is this: if you have a designer that is smart enough to design everything, wouldn't this designer be irreducibly complex? How on earth did the designer appear? was there some designer of the designer?

"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

A question i always like to ask to mess with ID proponents is this: if you have a designer that is smart enough to design everything, wouldn't this designer be irreducibly complex? How on earth did the designer appear? was there some designer of the designer?

There are some things that cannot be explained by man. We would just be arrogant to think that we could possibly have all the answers. From a common sense standpoint, intelligent design makes sense. I'm typing this using a computer that isn't all too complex, but certainly I must assume from opening the case (voiding my warranty) and looking at the parts that somebody purposefully built it. The parts don't work together by chance. We look at complex systems in the world, much more complex than a pc, yet conclude that somehow it all came together by chance in the beginning of time? Seems doubtful. Any theory of origins must be accepted by faith, and, in truth, you must accept both creation and Biblical Christianity by faith. By the way, this is a pivotal point of Biblical Christianity.

Science cannot explain the origins of man, because the scientific process demands observation. Even if we could observe some sort of evolution (which I do not concede), how could we be sure it was the same process under the same conditions as existed in the beginning of time? You would be trying to prove an historical fact through science, like trying to prove the landing of the Mayflower through soil samples.

I think an interesting question could be put to you. If ID is not true, then from where did the original elements originate? If you believed in big bang, where did the explosion originate? If you believe in some kind of ooze pool, from where did the ooze come?

Finally, how can science prove something that scientists were not there to observe? Now if you do believe the Bible, then you have a documented account. If you don't believe the Bible, then you are stuck.